I hadn't noticed the issue with PDS load modules versus PDSE program objects. We currently are placing them in PDSs, but as we now use basic sysplex PDSE sharing we are going to soon want to convert to PDSE. I'm going to see what happens, just for my edification, but I believe you are right. Hmmm... This is not ideal. If you think of any good ideas please let me know! Thanks, Frank
>________________________________ > From: John Gilmore <jwgli...@gmail.com> >To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 1:42 PM >Subject: Re: re-entrant modules and the binder > >Frank, > >I take your point about the use of the binder option COMPAT(LKED). It >does ensure that no load module that contains a non-reentrant HLASM >module will be marked RENT. > >I am not, however, sure that COMPAT(LKED) is free of other disabilities. > >It ensures, for example, that target executables will be PDS-resident >load modules, not PDSE-resident program objects. > >It may preclude use of some LE facilities, for the use of which PM3 >must minimally be specified. (The manual text is not entirely clear: >we are abjured to avoid the notion that COMPAT is necessarily a lower >level than PM1; but it is silent about where PM3 fits into this >partial ordering.) > > >John Gilmore, Ashland MA, 01721 - USA > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
